Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:30:18 -0500
Reply-To:     John Rodgers <jh_rodgers@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Rodgers <jh_rodgers@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject:      Re: Fire Suppression Solutions
Comments: To: Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
In-Reply-To:  <f05100305bd364998ac84@[203.167.171.225]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Andrew, I agree with you on the dry chemical. It suffocates the flame.
However, the CO2 extenguisher not only suffocates the flame, it drops
the temperature dramatically as the CO2 expands.

BTW, works good for chilling the beer on a hot day. Use to chill a few
when I was in the Navy, but putting them down the discharge funnel of
the CO2 extinguisher and pulliing the trigger. Instant cool. Where I was
we always had a few extinguishers around that had to be discharged for
testing the tanks, etc, so we put them to good use.

Regards,

John Rodgers
88 GL Driver

Andrew Grebneff wrote:

>> The chemical cylinder would need to be big enough to
>> completely flood the engine compartment sufficiently so that even with
>> the chemicals that would escape out the bottom under the engine, there
>> would be enough going into the area to suffocate any flames.
>
>
> The thing we were told on our extinguisher course was that you must
> not only out the fire out, you must cool things down so that there is
> no reignition. This is one thing where dry-powder extinguishers are
> superior. We were told that for fires above floor/ground-level,
> carbon dioxide flows down and this often allows the fire to reignite.
>